From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Sun Apr 11 12:42:10 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:42:10 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Message-ID: Hi All, Bought a bunch of 25 foot rolls of Fred Meyers aluminum foil with the intent of doing some initial experiments with corrosion on large foils. I had some questions about geometry and reactivity that I think needed to be answered before I try something larger. So last night I took one of the rolls and divided it into six pieces. The first two pieces were folded in half lengthwise, then rolled one after the other on a 1 inch dia form. The result is a structure with the fold all at one end and the open leaves all at the other. The second two leaves were cut in half lengthwise, and all rolled one after the other on the same form. This produced a roll like the first but where the open leaves are at both ends. The final roll was done as the first, but with the folded end crimped with pliers. This roll is pretty close to what Nick achieves when he cuts a full roll in half. As you may know from working with foil, if you cut it like that you end up with an electrical dead short at the end of the roll. My reactor vessels are quart mason jars of which I have _many_, some even not being used for the house preserves. The six inch rolls just fit in, with < 1 inch of headspace. As weather permits this week I'll load all the jars with electrolyte and makes some temp measurements. What I am looking for is rate of temp increase and general reactivity with the different geometries. If there is no noticable difference I'll do the simplest thing ( cutting rolls as Nick has done ) for the larger experiments. I was not able to find coated foil. I could use parchment paper or some other kind of insulating divider; any thoughts about this? K. From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Sun Apr 11 18:40:49 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9752.45012.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, Sounds like a good plan with screening experiments! I would suggest that if you want to start with a salt electrolyte, NaCl is the way to go. That would give vigorous results and follow in the lineage of what I had tried. As for the teflon coated foil, I think Reynolds might hold the patent on it, as I have only ever seen it available by Reynolds Wrap brand. I don't think any of indy brand foil purveyors have it as a product line. You might need to get it at a bigger outlet supermarket ala KMart or Walmart. Good luck! n > Bought a bunch of 25 foot rolls of Fred Meyers aluminum > foil > with the intent of doing some initial experiments with > corrosion on large foils. I had some questions about > geometry and reactivity that I think needed to be answered > before I try something larger. So last night I took > one of the rolls and divided it into six pieces. > The first two pieces were folded in half lengthwise, > then rolled one after the other on a 1 inch dia form. > The result is a structure with the fold all at one > end and the open leaves all at the other. > > The second two leaves were cut in half lengthwise, > and all rolled one after the other on the same form. > This produced a roll like the first but where the open > leaves > are at both ends. > > The final roll was done as the first, but with the folded > end crimped with pliers. This roll is pretty close to > what Nick achieves when he cuts a full roll in half. As > you > may know from working with foil, if you cut it like that > you end up with an electrical dead short at the end of the > roll. > > My reactor vessels are quart mason jars of which I have > _many_, > some even not being used for the house preserves. The > six inch rolls just fit in, with < 1 inch of headspace. > > As weather permits this week I'll load all the jars with > electrolyte and makes some temp measurements. What I am > looking for is rate of temp increase and general > reactivity > with the different geometries. If there is no noticable > difference I'll do the simplest thing ( cutting rolls as > Nick has done ) for the larger experiments. > > I was not able to find coated foil. I could use parchment > paper or some other kind of insulating divider; any > thoughts > about this? > > K. > > _______________________________________________ > NewCandle mailing list > NewCandle at ipdiscover.com > http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com > From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Fri Apr 16 14:14:00 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:14:00 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <9752.45012.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Nick, Just a quick update. I used NaCl at about 1 tablespoon/quart of filtered water, and started all of the rolls 2 days ago. No noticable reaction yet. Nighttime temps get down to 10C or lower, and given that I had better results in the apt in brooklyn I suspect this to be part of the problem. Today, I cut one 25 sqr foot roll in half, squished it flat, and removed the inner cardboard core with a pair of pliers. I'll drop both pieces into a quart jar, we'll see how much metal is necessary to kick the reaction into that positive feedback loop that ends in boiling. K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:41 PM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hi Keith, Sounds like a good plan with screening experiments! I would suggest that if you want to start with a salt electrolyte, NaCl is the way to go. That would give vigorous results and follow in the lineage of what I had tried. As for the teflon coated foil, I think Reynolds might hold the patent on it, as I have only ever seen it available by Reynolds Wrap brand. I don't think any of indy brand foil purveyors have it as a product line. You might need to get it at a bigger outlet supermarket ala KMart or Walmart. Good luck! n > Bought a bunch of 25 foot rolls of Fred Meyers aluminum > foil > with the intent of doing some initial experiments with > corrosion on large foils. I had some questions about > geometry and reactivity that I think needed to be answered > before I try something larger. So last night I took > one of the rolls and divided it into six pieces. > The first two pieces were folded in half lengthwise, > then rolled one after the other on a 1 inch dia form. > The result is a structure with the fold all at one > end and the open leaves all at the other. > > The second two leaves were cut in half lengthwise, > and all rolled one after the other on the same form. > This produced a roll like the first but where the open > leaves > are at both ends. > > The final roll was done as the first, but with the folded > end crimped with pliers. This roll is pretty close to > what Nick achieves when he cuts a full roll in half. As > you > may know from working with foil, if you cut it like that > you end up with an electrical dead short at the end of the > roll. > > My reactor vessels are quart mason jars of which I have > _many_, > some even not being used for the house preserves. The > six inch rolls just fit in, with < 1 inch of headspace. > > As weather permits this week I'll load all the jars with > electrolyte and makes some temp measurements. What I am > looking for is rate of temp increase and general > reactivity > with the different geometries. If there is no noticable > difference I'll do the simplest thing ( cutting rolls as > Nick has done ) for the larger experiments. > > I was not able to find coated foil. I could use parchment > paper or some other kind of insulating divider; any > thoughts > about this? > > K. > > _______________________________________________ > NewCandle mailing list > NewCandle at ipdiscover.com > http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com > _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Fri Apr 16 15:28:16 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <953864.29077.qm@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, The amount of salt you used is right in the zone - that was our concentration for starting out with. My recollection is that with the high mass reactors (600 square feet of half-roll) with salt water, at ~23 to 25C, you would start to see slight spitting bubble streams at about 48 to 72 hours, and then it would tend to accelerate like gangbusters once the water temp reached about 35C or so. So I suppose Arrhenius might say double the wait time, if at 10C. Now I never was quite able to ascertain just what the variable entailed, but I've used steam distilled water as the starting solvent. Probably worth noting in case you get to a point of "Hmm". As well as the polypropylene vs. Mason jar variable too. I have to confess all bets are off as to the roll-mass or turns required for the truly vigorous runaway reaction. The standard mass we settled on lng ago was 600 square feet - in the form of three 200-ft rolls sawed in half, with cardboard tubes pulled. So what you are examining with these screening experiments is new ground, and certainly valuable and necessary! Best of luck! n > Hey Nick, > > Just a quick update. I used NaCl at about 1 > tablespoon/quart of > filtered water, and started all of the rolls 2 days ago. > No > noticable reaction yet. Nighttime temps get down to 10C or > lower, and given that I had better results in the apt in > brooklyn I suspect this to be part of the problem. > > Today, I cut one 25 sqr foot roll in half, squished it > flat, and removed the inner cardboard core with a pair > of pliers. I'll drop both pieces into a quart jar, we'll > see how much metal is necessary to kick the reaction > into that positive feedback loop that ends in boiling. > > K. > From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Sat Apr 17 12:20:38 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:20:38 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <953864.29077.qm@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Nick, My current metal/electrolyte ratio is 25 sqr ft/quart. This was the roll I cut and flattened. After 24 hours, bubbles are forming on that. The 8 sqr ft/quart experiments have also started to form some bubbles. In the case of the separate leaves of foil, and the crimped foil, the metal has started to float up out of the jars from trapped gas. Only the folded foil remains submerged. In all cases the crimp/fold ends face down into the solution. When I did these experiments on a smaller scale in Brooklyn, I got much faster results as I did them in a warm apartment. Have you tried an equal mass of powdered aluminum? I have some 20 micron CP powder but I'm disinclined to use it for such crude work. Maybe it's time to see what the internet has to offer by way of cheap tech grade chemicals. Also, one might with a pair of scissors and gloves cut up a roll into small pieces. This I can do now, and will, as I think the trapped gas is really affecting how this system progresses. K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:28 PM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hi Keith, The amount of salt you used is right in the zone - that was our concentration for starting out with. My recollection is that with the high mass reactors (600 square feet of half-roll) with salt water, at ~23 to 25C, you would start to see slight spitting bubble streams at about 48 to 72 hours, and then it would tend to accelerate like gangbusters once the water temp reached about 35C or so. So I suppose Arrhenius might say double the wait time, if at 10C. Now I never was quite able to ascertain just what the variable entailed, but I've used steam distilled water as the starting solvent. Probably worth noting in case you get to a point of "Hmm". As well as the polypropylene vs. Mason jar variable too. I have to confess all bets are off as to the roll-mass or turns required for the truly vigorous runaway reaction. The standard mass we settled on lng ago was 600 square feet - in the form of three 200-ft rolls sawed in half, with cardboard tubes pulled. So what you are examining with these screening experiments is new ground, and certainly valuable and necessary! Best of luck! n > Hey Nick, > > Just a quick update. I used NaCl at about 1 > tablespoon/quart of > filtered water, and started all of the rolls 2 days ago. > No > noticable reaction yet. Nighttime temps get down to 10C or > lower, and given that I had better results in the apt in > brooklyn I suspect this to be part of the problem. > > Today, I cut one 25 sqr foot roll in half, squished it > flat, and removed the inner cardboard core with a pair > of pliers. I'll drop both pieces into a quart jar, we'll > see how much metal is necessary to kick the reaction > into that positive feedback loop that ends in boiling. > > K. > _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Tue Apr 20 13:44:53 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:44:53 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Some more on this experiment. Corrosion is definitely occurring but heat losses from the jar combined with low average outside temps are preventing the kind of runaway reaction noted by Nick. Sadly, when I was in NY, I did not purchase a boatload of cheapo thermos's from the friendly Chinese folks down on 8th ave, as I wasn't interested in hauling them 3K miles. They would have been ideal for this experiment. Most of the foil rolls are floating due to trapped gas. Only the 25 sqr ft one remains submerged without assistance. I suspect this problem will be worse when I do the shredded foil test. Much like the slow corrosion tests I did with the nitrates, a white jelly-like precipitate is forming at the bottom of the jars. This I assume is aluminum hydroxide and is where the leftover OH's are going as the solution contains no additional protons. Nick, how much of the foil in your big experiments is actually facing solution and corroding? K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Keith Nagel Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 9:21 AM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hey Nick, My current metal/electrolyte ratio is 25 sqr ft/quart. This was the roll I cut and flattened. After 24 hours, bubbles are forming on that. The 8 sqr ft/quart experiments have also started to form some bubbles. In the case of the separate leaves of foil, and the crimped foil, the metal has started to float up out of the jars from trapped gas. Only the folded foil remains submerged. In all cases the crimp/fold ends face down into the solution. When I did these experiments on a smaller scale in Brooklyn, I got much faster results as I did them in a warm apartment. Have you tried an equal mass of powdered aluminum? I have some 20 micron CP powder but I'm disinclined to use it for such crude work. Maybe it's time to see what the internet has to offer by way of cheap tech grade chemicals. Also, one might with a pair of scissors and gloves cut up a roll into small pieces. This I can do now, and will, as I think the trapped gas is really affecting how this system progresses. K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:28 PM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hi Keith, The amount of salt you used is right in the zone - that was our concentration for starting out with. My recollection is that with the high mass reactors (600 square feet of half-roll) with salt water, at ~23 to 25C, you would start to see slight spitting bubble streams at about 48 to 72 hours, and then it would tend to accelerate like gangbusters once the water temp reached about 35C or so. So I suppose Arrhenius might say double the wait time, if at 10C. Now I never was quite able to ascertain just what the variable entailed, but I've used steam distilled water as the starting solvent. Probably worth noting in case you get to a point of "Hmm". As well as the polypropylene vs. Mason jar variable too. I have to confess all bets are off as to the roll-mass or turns required for the truly vigorous runaway reaction. The standard mass we settled on lng ago was 600 square feet - in the form of three 200-ft rolls sawed in half, with cardboard tubes pulled. So what you are examining with these screening experiments is new ground, and certainly valuable and necessary! Best of luck! n > Hey Nick, > > Just a quick update. I used NaCl at about 1 > tablespoon/quart of > filtered water, and started all of the rolls 2 days ago. > No > noticable reaction yet. Nighttime temps get down to 10C or > lower, and given that I had better results in the apt in > brooklyn I suspect this to be part of the problem. > > Today, I cut one 25 sqr foot roll in half, squished it > flat, and removed the inner cardboard core with a pair > of pliers. I'll drop both pieces into a quart jar, we'll > see how much metal is necessary to kick the reaction > into that positive feedback loop that ends in boiling. > > K. > _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Tue Apr 20 17:35:03 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <178873.59212.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, Sorry for delays in replying. My father had open heart surgery this week - he is doing great - but I haven't been online very much due to taking care of things there. I can see how the small lightweight masses of foil could have some buoyancy issues. There WAS a couple of early designs that Sam and I played with that used the 25 ft^2 rolls. To hold them down, I devised a plastic frame made from reticulated ceiling light fixture grating to just hold them all under but have plenty of open space. Now your question about how much of a large mass foil set was contributing to the hydrolysis is sadly not straightforward. It seemed like with the salt water reactors, you could VERY CRUDELY estimate "hydrolyzing surface" by equating it with regions of foil that had visible oxide crusts, and pinholes. So in that case, generally the outer and inner most 20 turns or so were heavily corroded. However, even at "roll center" - innermost turns - cutting rolls open revealed that these were steady gas generation regions as well, though at a much lesser gas evolution rate. So in that spirit, I would answer that all of the roll mass eventually contributes... but the outermost and innermost zones were heavier. My intuition - with no math to back it up - would say that even with 25 ft^2 you may not get enough self-heat to go runaway. And thus the aluminum will sloooowly evolve bubbles. And of course there is still the possibility of some unknown enhancement from the mass and roll turn cavities. Is there any place on your premises where you could bring the jars inside into a more constant temperature zone? I can say that even at full tilt bubble, nothing went critical to an extent that I felt endangered with at least a salt or pure water bucket going in the kitchen. Your screening tests are much smaller yet. However I speaketh without knowing of your house arrangement and health concerns. The "products" after a typical large mass (600ft^2) bucket run petered out would be 6 half rolls of crusty perforated grey looking foil, and quite a bit of white powder or goopy slurry at the bottom of the remnant salt water. N > Most of the foil rolls are floating due to trapped > gas. Only the 25 sqr ft one remains submerged without > assistance. I suspect this problem will be worse > when I do the shredded foil test. > > Much like the slow corrosion tests I did with the > nitrates, > a white jelly-like precipitate is forming at the bottom > of the jars. This I assume is aluminum hydroxide and > is where the leftover OH's are going as the solution > contains no additional protons. > > Nick, how much of the foil in your big experiments is > actually facing solution and corroding? > > K. > > From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Wed Apr 21 13:26:34 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:26:34 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <178873.59212.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nick, Sorry to hear about your dad. Mine suffered the same problems and fared far worse, so glad to hear of his recovery. You write: >My intuition - with no math to back it up - would say that > even with 25 ft^2 you may not get enough self-heat to go > runaway. Why not? What in my mind is causing runaway in your large experiments is the fact that enough heat is being generated to outstrip the losses of the container. It's then just a matter of time before temps rise to boiling. I have a small pair of thermos's that I have used for calorimetery; I'll try one today. If I _can't_ get this to work at small scale we'll know something special is happening at large scale. These units are quite small, designed for lunch boxes. My safety concern about this is simply the H2 gas. It pools on the ceilings and can ignite with unfortunate results. What I need here is a fume hood. That said, I'm sure I could do these small scale experiments in the garage now that I've had some experience with them. I was also worried about free chlorine gas, a big no-no with hydrogen, but my nose detected no such problem. That combo will spontaneously explode. K. From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Thu Apr 22 12:31:35 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <164679.36832.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith and all, Thanks for the thoughts re: my dad. I appreciate it. You wrote: > Why not? What in my mind is causing runaway in your large > experiments is the fact that enough heat is being > generated > to outstrip the losses of the container. It's then just > a matter of time before temps rise to boiling. ***********Well, I had informally come to model it as a heat source of a certain total power output ( x calories per cm2 of foil turn, OR conversely x calories per gram of contributing foil.) As I presume you do too. However I had simply extended my model of the total system heat dissipation to include the water and plastic bucket material, both of which have a finite thermal conductivity or insulating value. So in that sense, lets say you have a 10 ohm resistor with 10 amps flowing through it. The resistor is dissipating 1000 watts, and if suspended in a medium, will come to a terminal temperature X. If you have 10 of these suspended near each other, they will be kicking out a total of 10kW. Now if you increase the volume, mass, and dissipative surface area of the vessel these are in proportionally, then they ought not to get much warmer than the single resistor. However if you pack em into the same vessel as one alone was in, then my prediction would be that the resistor pile would have a higher terminal temperature. Maybe I fell victim to a faulty line of thought. Regardless of any of this - a vacuum vessel / calorimeter would obviously render any such argument void. And so thus, you should get some good data. The other potential mechanism for a greater T rise with increased mass would possibly invoke the annular geometry of the roll turns, and possibly some ill defined (for me sorry to say) focusing and reflection of radiation and conducted energy to the middle of a roll. Good luck! n > > I have a small pair of thermos's that I have used for > calorimetery; I'll try one today. If I _can't_ get this > to work at small scale we'll know something special is > happening at large scale. These units are quite small, > designed for lunch boxes. > > My safety concern about this is simply the H2 gas. It > pools > on the ceilings and can ignite with unfortunate results. > What I need here is a fume hood. That said, I'm sure I > could do these small scale experiments in the garage now > that I've had some experience with them. I was also > worried > about free chlorine gas, a big no-no with hydrogen, but > my nose detected no such problem. That combo will > spontaneously > explode. > > K. > > _______________________________________________ > NewCandle mailing list > NewCandle at ipdiscover.com > http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com > From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Thu Apr 22 14:12:33 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:12:33 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <164679.36832.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nick, All sounds OK but for one missing element. The rate of reaction and hence power output, is proportional to temperature. Using your model it is as if the resistor was nonlinear, like an arc channel. The arc temp rises, its resistance lowers, more current flows, causing more power to dissipate, further raising the temp, etc etc. In the arc what limits the current flow is the max current available from the power supply. What limits the rise in the aluminum corrosion under this runaway condition is the max water temp, 100C. This feedback process requires a certain fixed level of power output to overcome the losses and start the snowball rolling. Our current tests all have lots of losses so it takes quite a bit of reacting metal to get enough heat to start the process. Using a vacuum flask will help in this regard. So would heating the water initially. Perhaps after I collect some hard data I can take a stab at mathematically modelling the system. I predict it will look a lot like the nonlinear arc process I describe above, with the first notable difference being the limiting conditions. Does this make sense to you? Last night I took my two small vacuum flasks and charged them each with 200mL of salt solution. Into one was dropped a 4.2 sqr ft roll of foil. The other has no metal and serves as a temp reference. We shall see what happens in the next few days. It still is intriguing to me that the folded metal roll I did a few days ago is reacting but not floating. I think this is an important geometric consideration; aside of the reaction rate test I initially designed for this experiment. K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:32 AM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hi Keith and all, Thanks for the thoughts re: my dad. I appreciate it. You wrote: > Why not? What in my mind is causing runaway in your large > experiments is the fact that enough heat is being > generated > to outstrip the losses of the container. It's then just > a matter of time before temps rise to boiling. ***********Well, I had informally come to model it as a heat source of a certain total power output ( x calories per cm2 of foil turn, OR conversely x calories per gram of contributing foil.) As I presume you do too. However I had simply extended my model of the total system heat dissipation to include the water and plastic bucket material, both of which have a finite thermal conductivity or insulating value. So in that sense, lets say you have a 10 ohm resistor with 10 amps flowing through it. The resistor is dissipating 1000 watts, and if suspended in a medium, will come to a terminal temperature X. If you have 10 of these suspended near each other, they will be kicking out a total of 10kW. Now if you increase the volume, mass, and dissipative surface area of the vessel these are in proportionally, then they ought not to get much warmer than the single resistor. However if you pack em into the same vessel as one alone was in, then my prediction would be that the resistor pile would have a higher terminal temperature. Maybe I fell victim to a faulty line of thought. Regardless of any of this - a vacuum vessel / calorimeter would obviously render any such argument void. And so thus, you should get some good data. The other potential mechanism for a greater T rise with increased mass would possibly invoke the annular geometry of the roll turns, and possibly some ill defined (for me sorry to say) focusing and reflection of radiation and conducted energy to the middle of a roll. Good luck! n > > I have a small pair of thermos's that I have used for > calorimetery; I'll try one today. If I _can't_ get this > to work at small scale we'll know something special is > happening at large scale. These units are quite small, > designed for lunch boxes. > > My safety concern about this is simply the H2 gas. It > pools > on the ceilings and can ignite with unfortunate results. > What I need here is a fume hood. That said, I'm sure I > could do these small scale experiments in the garage now > that I've had some experience with them. I was also > worried > about free chlorine gas, a big no-no with hydrogen, but > my nose detected no such problem. That combo will > spontaneously > explode. > > K. > > _______________________________________________ > NewCandle mailing list > NewCandle at ipdiscover.com > http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com > _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Thu Apr 22 14:45:48 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <739485.92763.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, > All sounds OK but for one missing element. The rate of > reaction > and hence power output, is proportional to temperature. > Using > your model it is as if the resistor was nonlinear, like > an arc channel. The arc temp rises, its resistance lowers, > more current flows, causing more power to dissipate, > further > raising the temp, etc etc. In the arc what limits the > current flow is the max current available from the power > supply. What limits the rise in the aluminum corrosion > under this > runaway condition is the max water temp, 100C. ************Indeed, correct. I like the analogy. > This feedback process requires a certain fixed level of > power output to overcome the losses and start the snowball > rolling. Our current tests all have lots of losses so > it takes quite a bit of reacting metal to get enough > heat to start the process. Using a vacuum flask will > help in this regard. So would heating the water initially. *************Heres a couple of tech-hints and nonsequiturs that might be meaningful. One of the recent recipes was the usual 5 liters of water, but with 20ml of 30% H2O2 added. This really seemed to be a kicker - the "pure" distilled water only reactor took over a week to start hydrolyzing visibly (though it reached a peak performance roughly analagous to the salt water version) - however the addition of the H2O2 kicked off the whole process in a time-accelerated way. Steady small bubble streams were beginning in less than 24 hours, and full peak bubbling was about 48. So I had come to see the peroxide doped bucket as sort of a "fast track" version, though of course it reached terminal oxidizing and petered off quicker too. Now I then started an identical bucket reactor, but placed it in an old lab refrigerator where it chilled to about 5C. As opposed to 20 to 25C. Arrhenius would predict that it should have slowed down the visible signs of any hydrolysis by a factor of 4 - 4 days instead of 1. However it was nearly 8 days out before very slight bubble stream formation began, and even now, proceeding at nary more than a trickle at T+11 days. > Perhaps after I collect some hard data I can take a stab > at mathematically modelling the system. I predict it > will look a lot like the nonlinear arc process I describe > above, with the first notable difference being the > limiting conditions. > > Does this make sense to you? *************That would be awesome! I would agree with your prediction. > > Last night I took my two small vacuum flasks and charged > them each with 200mL of salt solution. Into one was dropped > a > 4.2 sqr ft roll of foil. The other has no metal and serves > as a temp reference. We shall see what happens in the next > few days. It still is intriguing to me that the folded > metal > roll I did a few days ago is reacting but not floating. > I think this is an important geometric consideration; > aside > of the reaction rate test I initially designed for this > experiment. **********Interesting. Are any versions actually producing visible "continuous" small bubble streams, as opposed to slowly evolved clinging bubbles? ~n From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Fri Apr 23 13:15:07 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:15:07 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <739485.92763.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Nick. All this begs the question, "What is the rate determining step" I assume under neutral/alkaline conditions, that the corrosion is occuring at distinct sites, due to the insolubility of the oxide layer in solution ( we see all the oxide collecting at the bottom of the container ). Are the sites clogged with OH's? Or is H2 gas blocking the pits? Or something else??? I'll take a guess that the peroxide may be clearing the excess H from the corrosion sites, but you must have had a reason for adding it: why? Extra protons ( HCl for these salt experiments ) would hasten the dissolution of the oxide film on the aluminum. As you might guess, I am interested in nitrate corrosion. One thing the literature says about corrosion on aluminum is that it is very sensitive to dissolved oxygen. More O2 in solution, more corrosion. I can do another test which may be of interest. I have a nice Ag/AgCl half potential electrode which I can use to measure the potential of the aluminum w/ respect to the solution. I'll set up a special cell with a pigtail of aluminum out of the flask so I can make the measurement. K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:46 AM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil Hi Keith, > All sounds OK but for one missing element. The rate of > reaction > and hence power output, is proportional to temperature. > Using > your model it is as if the resistor was nonlinear, like > an arc channel. The arc temp rises, its resistance lowers, > more current flows, causing more power to dissipate, > further > raising the temp, etc etc. In the arc what limits the > current flow is the max current available from the power > supply. What limits the rise in the aluminum corrosion > under this > runaway condition is the max water temp, 100C. ************Indeed, correct. I like the analogy. > This feedback process requires a certain fixed level of > power output to overcome the losses and start the snowball > rolling. Our current tests all have lots of losses so > it takes quite a bit of reacting metal to get enough > heat to start the process. Using a vacuum flask will > help in this regard. So would heating the water initially. *************Heres a couple of tech-hints and nonsequiturs that might be meaningful. One of the recent recipes was the usual 5 liters of water, but with 20ml of 30% H2O2 added. This really seemed to be a kicker - the "pure" distilled water only reactor took over a week to start hydrolyzing visibly (though it reached a peak performance roughly analagous to the salt water version) - however the addition of the H2O2 kicked off the whole process in a time-accelerated way. Steady small bubble streams were beginning in less than 24 hours, and full peak bubbling was about 48. So I had come to see the peroxide doped bucket as sort of a "fast track" version, though of course it reached terminal oxidizing and petered off quicker too. Now I then started an identical bucket reactor, but placed it in an old lab refrigerator where it chilled to about 5C. As opposed to 20 to 25C. Arrhenius would predict that it should have slowed down the visible signs of any hydrolysis by a factor of 4 - 4 days instead of 1. However it was nearly 8 days out before very slight bubble stream formation began, and even now, proceeding at nary more than a trickle at T+11 days. > Perhaps after I collect some hard data I can take a stab > at mathematically modelling the system. I predict it > will look a lot like the nonlinear arc process I describe > above, with the first notable difference being the > limiting conditions. > > Does this make sense to you? *************That would be awesome! I would agree with your prediction. > > Last night I took my two small vacuum flasks and charged > them each with 200mL of salt solution. Into one was dropped > a > 4.2 sqr ft roll of foil. The other has no metal and serves > as a temp reference. We shall see what happens in the next > few days. It still is intriguing to me that the folded > metal > roll I did a few days ago is reacting but not floating. > I think this is an important geometric consideration; > aside > of the reaction rate test I initially designed for this > experiment. **********Interesting. Are any versions actually producing visible "continuous" small bubble streams, as opposed to slowly evolved clinging bubbles? ~n _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Fri Apr 23 14:20:29 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <611592.84467.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, A couple other stray observations. Last year I did a pair of runs using a standard salt I believe (NaCl or KCl) and I intentionally shifted the pH a few points either way - adding either HCl or NaOH (or KOH) Tried to take the pH to either ~4 or ~10 respectively. Oddly, what I found was that in both cases, the gas evolution volume and degree of reaction (qualitatively)was reduced. For optimum results, the system appears to *like* neutral. Now as for the H2O2 - honestly, it was just a shamanic selection. Lets see what happens, and see if whatever does happen gives us a clue to the overall system parameter set. A good portion of the first three quarters of last year was given over to trying exotic salts - for the purpose of looking for elemental transmutation evidence (you DO recall that this whole adventure started out in the land of the LENR weird, don't you;) While Sam Faile always enjoyed focusing on those speculations, I tried to grok the experimental results for evidence of Casimir cavity influence of the essential reaction rate, energy, and direction. That was always my primary interest - does the tight annular roll and cavity geometry produce an interesting effect or result that could be validated. Otherwise, if my objective was to produce H2 fuel gas by hydrolysis, I would simply mix up a steamin' wicked bucket of lye and toss scrap aluminum in all day long! (Now don't misunderstand - I think a lye-water scrap aluminum H2 generator SHOULD be an essential part of every post-apocalypse wasteland community!) > One thing the literature says about corrosion on aluminum > is > that it is very sensitive to dissolved oxygen. More O2 in > solution, > more corrosion. ****Thats interesting. I think there are different reaction rate limit parameters, one of the most sigificant is whatever inhibits the reaction from just starting right away, as soon as the water wicks into the roll. Even with salt water, we repeatedly would see a sequence... about a day of quiescence, then the "oil slick" when presumably machine oils are being carried away from the surfaces, a swelling of the rolls, then the onset of fine bubbles, then faster and larger bubbles, then violent boiling. But there was always a delay in the process - though with peroxide this delay was shortened drastically. > I can do another test which may be of interest. I have a > nice Ag/AgCl half potential electrode which I can use to > measure the potential of the aluminum w/ respect to the > solution. I'll set up a special cell with a pigtail of > aluminum out of the flask so I can make the measurement. *****That could be very significant, and tell us a volume. I tried to take potentials and measure currents using DVMs, but was more or less unsuccessful. I was even seeing potential differences between roll inner and outer turns. JaJa! n From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Sat Apr 24 12:41:22 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:41:22 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Getting started with aluminum foil In-Reply-To: <611592.84467.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Nick, you write: >Now as for the H2O2 - honestly, it was just a shamanic selection. >Lets see what happens, and see if whatever does happen gives > us a clue to the overall system parameter set. Funny thing that. Earlier in the list when I suggested the "shamanic" term I think I might have driven off Kyle, so odious was the connection. Yet, how effective! Consider the following. a) We know dissolved O2 is critical to corrosion in this system from the literature. And what would be the absolute best way to get more O2 into this system short of an expensive O2 generator and bubbler? Why, H2O2 b) We know these commercial foils are greasy and dirty. What makes a great cleaner/degreaser? H2O2 So a big standing O(2) for the shamanic method! >A good portion of the first three quarters of last year was given > over to trying exotic salts - for the purpose of looking for elemental > transmutation evidence (you DO recall that this whole adventure started > out in the land of the LENR weird, don't you;) Yep, but good idea to remind the studio audience. I think if you are looking for quantum effects that the size of the corrosion pits and holes in the oxide layer may be small enough to offer some possibility. >I tried to take potentials and measure currents using DVMs, > but was more or less unsuccessful. I was even seeing potential > differences between roll inner and outer turns. Funny, I don't see that as unsuccessful. I was _expecting_ to see some potential differences across the face of those large rolled foils, especially from the innermost turn to the outermost turn. The foils have substantial resistance, and real corrosion currents can flow through them. You should go back to that. I'll do the same here, but of immediate interest to me is the half potential w/ respect to solution. I will measure it at different temperatures, and before/after the introduction of H2O2. I think the increase in dissolved O2 should help the aluminum polarize w/ respect to the solution. K. From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Tue Apr 27 12:56:09 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:56:09 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Aluminum polarization under corrosion by salt Message-ID: Hi All, Some preliminary results from last night. I'm using a silver/silver chloride electrode for the reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_chloride_electrode I used working electrodes of Al foil 1 inch wide and about 4 inches long. The reactors were 250 ml pyrex beakers. Temperature was measured with a thermocouple probe. With clean water, the potential is ~.53V With salt water ( 1 tsp/200ml ) the potential is ~.7V With an electric heater, the salt solution was raised to 80C. Potential increased roughly linearly to .88V. On cooling back to room temp potential returned to .7V. Adding a dose of H202 ( about 5ml ) reduced the potential to .63V. Increasing the acidity with HCl from 6 to 2 produced little measureable difference in the potential. Shamefully, I was unable to find any NaOH around the lab, so no testing on the opposite end. I'll rectify that today. Finally, I took the mason jar experiments I reported earlier and made some measurements. The sunken electrode measures .94V. The floating electrodes measure .99V. The much bigger 25 sqr ft roll ( also trying to float ) measured 1.07V. I probed around at different points on the big foils and they were all the same potential w/ respect to the solution. I also probed across the big foil from inner turn to outer using the voltage probe clips with no noticable potential difference. I'll pick up a 200ft roll today along with the lye. We'll see what a x10 increase in the foil surface does ( over what I reported above from the small foil to the 25 sqr ft one ). By the way, this morning the foil used in the heater test was _badly_ corroded. The sample was only heated for about 30 minutes last night. The corrosion is much greater than that of the foil sitting in the acidic HCl/NaCl solution. K. From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Tue Apr 27 13:40:12 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Aluminum polarization under corrosion by salt Message-ID: <336518.93991.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Now thats some interesting data! I'll wait until you get further along with the alkaline side before speculating, but several groks jump out at me... The null change when shifted to the acidic would concur with the observation I made that it really seemed to make little difference in the hydrolysis / corrosion rate. I might also predict that the addition of H2O2 to salt water of a large bucket reactor would tend to suppress the reaction rate and slow down that version (whereas adding H2O2 to a pure distilled water version accelerated it). The increase in potential with area fascinates me. Why should this be - shouldn't the potential be primarily determined by the electronic properties of the materials? Or does an increase in current through the cell allow a higher potential to be read due to the meter circuit impedence? I'd like to toss out an electro-potential cell experiment suggestion, for when you feel far enough along with the basics and care to look at the next level toward the esoteric side. It would be two mini-roll foil masses, in a typical salt water solution. One would be a small roll section - like 2 inches of a 25ft long parent or starting roll. The other would be the same mini-roll worth of foil, but unrolled and loosely crumpled into a flimsy ball. The purpose would be to see if the ordered annular roll turn cavities influence the electropotential of the aluminum mass, versus a disordered crumpled ball with generally larger irregular more open cavities. This is exciting stuff though! We are learning a lot! n Hi All, Some preliminary results from last night. I'm using a silver/silver chloride electrode for the reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_chloride_electrode I used working electrodes of Al foil 1 inch wide and about 4 inches long. The reactors were 250 ml pyrex beakers. Temperature was measured with a thermocouple probe. With clean water, the potential is ~.53V With salt water ( 1 tsp/200ml ) the potential is ~.7V With an electric heater, the salt solution was raised to 80C. Potential increased roughly linearly to .88V. On cooling back to room temp potential returned to .7V. Adding a dose of H202 ( about 5ml ) reduced the potential to .63V. Increasing the acidity with HCl from 6 to 2 produced little measureable difference in the potential. Shamefully, I was unable to find any NaOH around the lab, so no testing on the opposite end. I'll rectify that today. Finally, I took the mason jar experiments I reported earlier and made some measurements. The sunken electrode measures .94V. The floating electrodes measure .99V. The much bigger 25 sqr ft roll ( also trying to float ) measured 1.07V. I probed around at different points on the big foils and they were all the same potential w/ respect to the solution. I also probed across the big foil from inner turn to outer using the voltage probe clips with no noticable potential difference. I'll pick up a 200ft roll today along with the lye. We'll see what a x10 increase in the foil surface does ( over what I reported above from the small foil to the 25 sqr ft one ). By the way, this morning the foil used in the heater test was _badly_ corroded. The sample was only heated for about 30 minutes last night. The corrosion is much greater than that of the foil sitting in the acidic HCl/NaCl solution. K. _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com Thu Apr 29 14:18:04 2010 From: NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com (Keith Nagel) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:18:04 -0700 Subject: [NewCandle] Aluminum polarization under corrosion by salt In-Reply-To: <336518.93991.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: OK, a few points to clear up. I presented the difference voltage as positive. If we take the accepted polarity ( ground as reference electrode ) all the posted values should be negative. That is to say, the aluminum is negative with respect to the solution. As regards the potential/area relationship. The potential increases with temperature as well. I am tentatively attributing the potential increase due to area as being the result of more H adsorbed onto the aluminum. I have a test in mind to illuminate this and other dark questions about the system, using a cell with a pair of al electrodes and a power supply. More on that next week sometime. Let's also not confuse the potential with the reaction rate. I can't get an ammeter into the cell to measure the corrosion currents for obvious reasons. I can look at corrosion of equal sized foils over time, and in fact the HCl/NaCl bath I mentioned earlier ate it's foil long before the pure NaCl bath. My comment from the last post should have been clearly qualified by the statement that the NaCl bath was heated and cooled, whereas the HCl/NaCl bath wasn't. When the baths are both cold, HCl wins out handily. Not sure if I mentioned this earlier, but I tried doubling the concentration of NaCl and saw a very small increase in potential. The increase seemed linear with doubling, at least in the range of 1 to 4 tsp/200ml. But we're talking about ~.02 V here. A question for you, Nick. Two days ago I started a 5 inch chunk of 200Ft roll. When I cut the big roll, I of course ended up with a solid, stuck together end. This is impeding the solution from penetrating the roll. I am considering burning off the end with the HCl bath. What do you do to free up the loose end? Sadly, I was unable to find any Red Devil Lye at the stores here. Perhaps there is some reason for this on the West Coast? Still looking and hoping. BTW, AgCl electrodes are pretty cheap. Omega sells gell filled ones for about 60 bucks. I'd be inclined to do your experiment if I could resolve how to handle the cut ends of the rolls. The acid will definitely work, but what do you do? K. -----Original Message----- From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Nick Reiter Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:40 AM To: New energy for the new world. Subject: Re: [NewCandle] Aluminum polarization under corrosion by salt Now thats some interesting data! I'll wait until you get further along with the alkaline side before speculating, but several groks jump out at me... The null change when shifted to the acidic would concur with the observation I made that it really seemed to make little difference in the hydrolysis / corrosion rate. I might also predict that the addition of H2O2 to salt water of a large bucket reactor would tend to suppress the reaction rate and slow down that version (whereas adding H2O2 to a pure distilled water version accelerated it). The increase in potential with area fascinates me. Why should this be - shouldn't the potential be primarily determined by the electronic properties of the materials? Or does an increase in current through the cell allow a higher potential to be read due to the meter circuit impedence? I'd like to toss out an electro-potential cell experiment suggestion, for when you feel far enough along with the basics and care to look at the next level toward the esoteric side. It would be two mini-roll foil masses, in a typical salt water solution. One would be a small roll section - like 2 inches of a 25ft long parent or starting roll. The other would be the same mini-roll worth of foil, but unrolled and loosely crumpled into a flimsy ball. The purpose would be to see if the ordered annular roll turn cavities influence the electropotential of the aluminum mass, versus a disordered crumpled ball with generally larger irregular more open cavities. This is exciting stuff though! We are learning a lot! n Hi All, Some preliminary results from last night. I'm using a silver/silver chloride electrode for the reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_chloride_electrode I used working electrodes of Al foil 1 inch wide and about 4 inches long. The reactors were 250 ml pyrex beakers. Temperature was measured with a thermocouple probe. With clean water, the potential is ~.53V With salt water ( 1 tsp/200ml ) the potential is ~.7V With an electric heater, the salt solution was raised to 80C. Potential increased roughly linearly to .88V. On cooling back to room temp potential returned to .7V. Adding a dose of H202 ( about 5ml ) reduced the potential to .63V. Increasing the acidity with HCl from 6 to 2 produced little measureable difference in the potential. Shamefully, I was unable to find any NaOH around the lab, so no testing on the opposite end. I'll rectify that today. Finally, I took the mason jar experiments I reported earlier and made some measurements. The sunken electrode measures .94V. The floating electrodes measure .99V. The much bigger 25 sqr ft roll ( also trying to float ) measured 1.07V. I probed around at different points on the big foils and they were all the same potential w/ respect to the solution. I also probed across the big foil from inner turn to outer using the voltage probe clips with no noticable potential difference. I'll pick up a 200ft roll today along with the lye. We'll see what a x10 increase in the foil surface does ( over what I reported above from the small foil to the 25 sqr ft one ). By the way, this morning the foil used in the heater test was _badly_ corroded. The sample was only heated for about 30 minutes last night. The corrosion is much greater than that of the foil sitting in the acidic HCl/NaCl solution. K. _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com _______________________________________________ NewCandle mailing list NewCandle at ipdiscover.com http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com From avalonbiker at yahoo.com Thu Apr 29 14:28:01 2010 From: avalonbiker at yahoo.com (Nick Reiter) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NewCandle] Aluminum polarization under corrosion by salt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <829737.66515.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, Thank you for clearing that up. I apologize if I missed some of it in my earlier reply. Brain's been in the deep fryer lately. But a quick reply regarding the large foil rolls. The standard arrangement since pretty well day 1 with what Sam Faile and I had come to call the "bucket" consisted of three 200ft rolls, each one sawed in half on a bandsaw. Thus for a roughly 12 inch long roll, one cut in the middle gives you two ~6" rolls, each one having an open end and a "squished" end. In the polypropylene bucket we used, the rolls are bundled against each other, upright, with the free or open ends of each one facing up, the squished end at the bottom. Now as far as dressing or trying to re-open the sawed end to a free condition - basically no. I've always left that as is. When you immerse a roll like that in water, the water ingress is most rapidly down the turns from the inside, the outside, and the free end (when it goes under or is covered) I did determine that there IS a slow seeping in even from the most hard-pinched of sawed ends, but of course it is likely much less than from an open end or inner/outer turn. In such a geometry, you can gauge the rate of water ingress by watching the small outgassing bubble streams when you add the water (or immerse). Generally speaking, it seems like a 200ft long six inch wide "half roll" only takes about 15 to 20 minutes to become soaked and infiltrated all the way through. Thats what we gots... Again, thanks for all the info and work! n > I presented the difference voltage as positive. If we take > the accepted > polarity ( ground as reference electrode ) all the posted > values should > be negative. That is to say, the aluminum is negative with > respect > to the solution. > > As regards the potential/area relationship. The potential > increases > with temperature as well. I am tentatively attributing the > potential > increase due to area as being the result of more H adsorbed > onto the > aluminum. > I have a test in mind to illuminate this and other dark > questions > about the system, using a cell with a pair of al electrodes > and > a power supply. More on that next week sometime. > > Let's also not confuse the potential with the reaction > rate. I can't > get an ammeter into the cell to measure the corrosion > currents for > obvious reasons. I can look at corrosion of equal sized > foils over time, > and in fact the HCl/NaCl bath I mentioned earlier ate it's > foil > long before the pure NaCl bath. My comment from the last > post should > have been clearly qualified by the statement that the NaCl > bath was heated > and cooled, whereas the HCl/NaCl bath wasn't. When the > baths are > both cold, HCl wins out handily. > > Not sure if I mentioned this earlier, but I tried doubling > the > concentration of NaCl and saw a very small increase in > potential. > The increase seemed linear with doubling, at least in the > range of 1 to 4 tsp/200ml. But we're talking about ~.02 V > here. > > A question for you, Nick. Two days ago I started a 5 inch > chunk of > 200Ft roll. When I cut the big roll, I of course > ended up with a solid, stuck together end. This is impeding > the > solution from penetrating the roll. I am considering > burning off > the end with the HCl bath. What do you do to free up the > loose end? > > Sadly, I was unable to find any Red Devil > Lye at the stores here. Perhaps there is some reason for > this > on the West Coast?? Still looking and hoping. > > BTW, AgCl electrodes are pretty cheap. Omega sells gell > filled ones > for about 60 bucks. > > I'd be inclined to do your experiment if I could resolve > how to > handle the cut ends of the rolls. The acid will definitely > work, > but what do you do? > > K.